We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
In 1702, King William III was riding his horse around the gardens of Hampton Court Palace when the horse stumbled on a mole-hill. William was thrown and suffered injuries from which he did not recover. From then on, his Jacobite foes celebrated the event by raising a toast to ‘the little gentleman in black velvet’.
Fast forward three centuries and another species of native British wildlife could be the cause of a government tumble. When supporters of the Countryside Alliance marched through London last September in protest at HMG’s plans to abolish fox-hunting they said they were ‘Born to hunt, ready to fight’. Now, according to the UK Times [no direct link], some of them are about to make good on that threat:
THOUSANDS of people will boycott the payment of council tax, car licence tax and the BBC licence fee under plans by hunt supporters to launch a campaign of “civil resistance” against the proposed ban on foxhunting.
The threat of law-breaking by thousands of otherwise respectable middle-class citizens is revealed in confidential documents prepared by the Countryside Alliance and leaked to The Sunday Times.
Of course, this isn’t really all about fox-hunting. It’s a cumulation of deeply felt resentments about a lot of things (see our archives for details) and, probably above all, about a government which rules rather than represents.
Still talk is cheap and fighting talk is wholesale. Do the countryside rebels have the grit to actually do it? Or sustain it? Marching up and down with placards is one thing, but actual tax rebellion is hitting the state where it hurts and that means that the state is certain to hit back. Only through a willingness to accept the consequences can the rebels hope to succeed. But what if they do succeed and large pockets of the countryside become, in effect, ungovernable? What if they succeed thus and it spreads?
Too early to tell yet but I find the editorial position taken by the Times to be of considerable interest:
It is indicative of the ever-tightening grip of a controlling society. New laws, many from Brussels, increasingly control what we can or cannot do. Employers spend more time managing red tape than expanding firms and creating jobs. Motorists operate under the watchful eye of ubiquitous speed cameras. Government intrudes on what used to be considered our private sphere, regulating our behaviour and demanding with menaces information about every jot and tittle of our lives. Hunt supporters are saying enough is enough, that somebody has to take a stand against this assault on our liberties. And they have a point.
Succinctly put and admirably correct. Nonetheless we’re not just talking about a sit-down demo or a campaign of fly-leafleting here and while the editorial doesn’t quite go as far as condoning the rebellion they only stop just short, leaving no-one in any doubt as to where their sympathies lie. When an institution as reliably august and reputable as the Times gives an approving nod and wink to a campaign of civil disobedience then you know for sure that there is a whiff of real excitement in the air.
It must have been about a decade ago that I first became aware of the alleged dangers of exposure to the sun and the ‘link’ between over-exposure to ultra-violet radiation and skin cancer*. Looking back, it was a ‘consciousness raising exercise’ that mushroomed from ‘never heard of it’ to widespread health-panic with remarkable speed.
Assisted, perhaps, by the miserabalisit anti-hedonism of the Nineties and the suspiciously convenient dovetailing with the doleful predictions about ‘global warming’, we should have been more sceptical. But medical opinion was converted and few people have the confidence to fly in the face of such an august edifice. The new orthodoxy was nailed down with copious amounts of ‘official’ advice to stay in, wrap up, cover up and, if you are foolhardy enough to venture out in the sun, only do so after smothering yourself with gallons of sunblock.
But that was then, and this is now:
A scientist is claiming too much sunscreen can lead to vitamin deficiency.
Professor Michael Holick of Boston University is advising people to spend up to 10 minutes a day in the sun unprotected to guard against a lack of vitamin D.
He said: “In our efforts to protect people from the sun we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater.”
So Professor Holick just a publicity-seeking iconoclast or is this the heretical opening shot of a debunking campaign?
Perhaps the only danger we really need to worry about are the risks arising from an over-exposure to ‘experts’.
[Note to professional scare-mongers: ‘cancer’ is the panic word of our age. Linking lifestyle choices to heart disease or kidney failure just doesn’t cut the mustard.]
Those liberty-loving cyber-guerillas over at Bureaucrash have cooked up a wry little animation the subject of which is a Canadian (I presume) politician caught red-handed (and gold-wristed) in the act of selling snake-oil.
Well worth a look.
[My thanks to reader Ernest Young for the link.]
It would be quite wrong to suggest that the issue of self-defence (and the law relating thereto) is a libertarian issue. But it is probably true that, for many years, there was next to no debate about it as an issue outside of libertarian circles.
For free market advocates, self-defence (and the natural right thereto) is not just an important issue, it is a cornerstone of individualist philosophy. Yet, while libertarian scholars and writers debated passionately about the issue, it barely registered a blip on the radar of wider public interest.
That is, until a certain Tony Martin shot two intruders who had broken into his remote Norfolk farmhouse, killing one of them. The news that he had been arrested and charged with murder, led to a broken-dam deluge of furious and passionate debate about the right of self-defence and which flooded every medium.
Overnight, it seemed, self-defence had become a hot topic, not least because, as with so many debates, it has tended to generate more heat than light.
I do not intend to simply re-hash the Martin case and the various reasons why his actions either were or were not justified. That has already been done in some length here and elsewhere. What I want is to examine the reasons why practical self-defence has, to all intents and purposes, become illegal in the UK.
The obvious starting point is the law itself. While I believe that broader phenomena have played their part in creating the current situation, it is critical to examine how they worked to shape both law and custom as it stands. → Continue reading: The way we were
The Financial Times has long dined out on its reputation as an institution steeped in sound economic principles combined with dispassionate and admirably non-partisan reportage.
The truth is that, for the last few years, that reliable old standard of fiscal soundness has been an amplifier of third-way, interventionist euro-mummery and the kind of kumbaya hand-wringing that most of us more normally associate with the Guardian. Sad yes, but predictably concordant with the miasmic and corrosive spirit of our age.
However, I detect a change afoot and not for the good. If this preposterously fawnographic article on Noam Chomsky is anything to by, then maybe the FT is about to pack up its wagon and head on out into the wild, barren scrubland of drooling lefty-lunacy:
Noam Chomsky pokes fun at President George W. Bush’s “original vision” of a Palestinian state, and the audience chuckles. He talks of Ronald Reagan as “our cowboy leader” and they guffaw. He reminds them that the Reagan administration once described Nicaragua as a grave military threat and they practically roll in the aisles.”
The he tells them the one about two gay guys who go into a bar and they double-up in spasms of choking hysteria. Noam Chomsky: the comic’s comic.
The collective sniggering makes everyone feel at one, and the US’s dissident-in-chief is not above being clubbish.
Nor is he above being childish. In fact, he makes a handsome living out of it.
On this warm evening in a suburban Boston church, they are looking to their unofficial leader for a renewed sense of purpose.
They’ll be looking for a very long time. → Continue reading: From pink to red
Sticking with the ‘names’ theme, it must be silly season in the US Congress. At least, I certainly hope so because this is the quite the daftest thing I have heard in a good long while:
Do devastating hurricanes need help from affirmative action?
A member of Congress apparently thinks so, and is demanding the storms be given names that sound “black.”
The congressional newspaper the Hill reported this week that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, feels that the current names are too “lily white,” and is seeking to have better representation for names reflecting African-Americans and other ethnic groups.
First there was ‘Scoop’ Jackson, now we have ‘Windbag’ Lee.
“All racial groups should be represented,” Lee said, according to the Hill. She hoped federal weather officials “would try to be inclusive of African-American names.”
What about tornadoes? Don’t they deserve names as well? This is pure weatherism.
Amidst all the buzz and debate over the imminent recall vote in California and the prospects of ‘Big Arnie’ becoming the next governer of the state, I have been struck by another of those cultural differences between Britain and the USA, albeit a superficial one.
I do not know whether American politics is intrinsically more interesting than politics in Britain but I do think that it sounds a lot more colourful. While perusing opinion in the US-end of the blogosphere, I keep coming across American political figures who sound as if they have just jumped straight out of the pages of a James Ellroy novel.
For example, I can imagine ‘Cruz Bustamante’ as a diamond-toothed pimp-turned police informer; ‘Scoop Jackson’, as an alcoholic former baseball player turned seedy private detective. Even Jesse Ventura and Rudolph Guiliani sound like they might have been ‘button-men’ for the syndicate.
Cut to the UK where we have political figures with names like ‘Gordon Brown’, ‘John Major’ and ‘Iain Duncan Smith’. For all the world they sound like dullards with plain suits and narcolepsy-inducing platforms.
I do not know quite what follows from this or, indeed, if anything follows from it at all. If there are any dazzlingly clever cultural observations to be extrapolated then they surely only of trivial significance. The minutiae of American politics is, I daresay, every bit as dry and opaque as it is anywhere else but I would be tickled pink by the vista of characters with names like ‘Bustamante’ and ‘Ventura’ strutting their stuff around Westminster.
Britain is hot today. Scorching. It’s hot, it’s sticky, it’s steamy and, for the Guardian that means….it’s Kyoto time:
Evidence increasingly points to a weather system shaped more and more not by nature but by humanity. The pattern of industrial development of modern day society appears to be producing too much pollution for the world to cope with. The effects will irrevocably remake the climate for the worse.
And we all know who to blame for this, don’t we? Yes we jolly well do.
On gaining office, the Bush administration, with its roots in oil and big business, withdrew unilaterally from the biggest international commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions – the Kyoto protocol. To gain some scale of how reckless this act of political vandalism was consider this: if US states were independent nations they would comprise 25 of the top 60 nations that emit greenhouse gases – Texas’s emissions alone exceed France’s.
The Guardian runs this same editorial rant about once a fortnight regardless of whether it’s hot, cold, tipping down or a white-out. In the summer, though, they just turn the volume up. They probably call it a social conscience. I reckon it’s a bad case of sunstroke.
China is becoming an increasingly interesting country as far as I am concerned. That is not because I know anything about it. On the contrary, it is because I know so little about it beyond the conventional impressions of it being big, populous and mysterious.
But I keep running across snippets of news that provide some tantalising insights into the way that country appears to be going. This from the Economist:
WITH an increasingly sophisticated and wealthy customer base, Chinese consumer-goods makers are starting to pay attention to brand-building. The smartest are moving beyond simple product ads to marketing an entire lifestyle. In an echo of Nike’s famous “Just do it” campaign, Li-Ning, the largest producer in China’s sportswear market, has just launched an advertising blitz under the mottos “Goodbye” and “Anything is possible”. Costing 15m yuan ($1.8m), eight times the company’s usual ad spend, it taps into the Chinese belief that they can safely wave goodbye to their hard lives of the past, and that the future is filled with unlimited opportunities.
See, I find reports like this fascinating not least because all this entrepreneurial dash is happening in a country which is supposed to be communist. Well, clearly it is not communist. In fact, if the British Labour Party were in charge of China they would probably be looking into ways of trying to put a stop to this kind of thing.
I wonder if the implication in the article is really true? Is China awash with people who believe that ‘the future is filled with unlimited opportunities’? If so then that bodes well for China despite their being saddled with a repressive and ferociously authoritarian government. Who knows if the post-communist hacks that still run the place will be able to maintain their vice-like grip in the hurricane of anarchic forces that all this capitalism and prosperity will eventually unleash.
For reasons I cannot articulate to any satisfactory degree, I believe that China will impact upon the rest of the world in a major way and, possibly, quite soon. Whether this impact will be for good or for ill I cannot say but I do regard the emergence of all this ‘can-do’ spirit to be rather encouraging. After all, political regimes come and go and none of them last forever. The people who are most likely to dictate the shape of the future are the ones who believe that the future is filled with unlimited opportunities.
And it hasn’t been ‘cricket’ for some time according to Philip Chaston:
Preference for the BBC, even from such a low base, demonstrates the length of time that it can take for an institution’s authority to wither away. After all, a dispassionate observer in contemporary Britain would not judge the BBC to be objective or impartial, although the lingering effects of its past present a noteworthy survival and form the foundations of its remaining credibility.
Philip goes on to explain why the problems that beset the BBC beset British public administration as a whole and why the solution to those problems may be emerging.
It’s a strikingly good piece and one to which I can add nothing except a hearty endorsement.
We all know the old saying: there’s lies, then there’s damnable lies and and there’s government education statistics:
Leading independent schools are preparing to abandon GCSE, one of the central props of the Government’s tottering exam system.
Pupils at leading schools commonly take 12 subjects, many of them a year early, and up to 90 per cent of the papers are graded A* or A.
“It’s like Boy Scouts collecting badges,” said Tony Little, who has just completed his first year as head of Eton. “One has to ask what the educational value of it is.”
Methinks that Mr.Little is being polite. I suspect that what he really wants to say is that an exam system that is so ‘dumbed-down’ as to ensure that virtually nobody fails is about as much practical use as a chocolate teapot. Handing every schoolchild lots of certificates to wave around doesn’t mean that they have actually been educated.
The elite schools’ decision to break ranks without waiting to see the details of the Government’s plan to replace GCSE and A-levels with a national diploma will alarm Charles Clarke, the Education Secretary.
It suggests the schools have no faith in the Government’s claim that academic standards will be protected from further debasement.
And they are right not to have any faith because the government is not concerned about education it is merely anxious to present lots of impressive statistics in order to convince everyone (including themselves) that children are being educated instead of merely processed. This isn’t education it’s a puppet show.
However, it is difficult to hide the sordid truth from the people whose business it is to actually help young people learn lots of things and it is gratifying to witness some of them breaking rank. Hopefully this is the start of a trend as people who truly value education begin to realise that it is far too important and precious to be left to the government.
Perhaps I should be more disturbed than I am by the possibility that our Prime Minister appears to have been beset by holy visions:
Tony Blair knows it is one of the most delicate of subjects. When asked about it he squirms and tries to change to a more comfortable line of inquiry. But quietly the Prime Minister is putting religion at the centre of the New Labour project, reflecting his own deeply felt beliefs that answers to most questions can be found in the Bible.
The Observer can reveal that Blair is to allow Christian organisations and other ‘faith groups’ a central role in policy-making in a decisive break with British traditions that religion and government should not mix.
Once again, life imitates art with Mr.Blair appearing to have lived up the Private Eye magazine caricature of him as a trendy, preachy Vicar.
All chortling aside (to be stored up and deployed at a later date) I have no way of proving that this isn’t strictly a matter of conscience. I can’t prove it isn’t, but I simply don’t buy it. The timing is far too suspicious. For me it has got all the hallmarks of a frantic search for a new moral underpinning by a politician whose quasi-evangelical ‘government for everyone’ zeal first had the sheen rubbed off of it and then had the shit kicked out of it. This is not so much an act of piety as an act of desperation.
But perhaps I am being more cynical than I need to be. They say you should never judge a man until you walked a mile in his shoes. Right now, I wouldn’t want to be in Mr.Blair’s shoes. His personal popularity is plummeting and the government he is supposed to be steering just cannot seem to do anything right anymore. Every which way he turns he sees enemies, backstabbers, plotters and sneering journalists asking questions he just cannot answer. Faced with that vista who wouldn’t want to retreat to the comforting certainties of that old-time religion?
I know I am not the first to say so but it does look increasingly likely that Mr.Blair is groping for the door marked ‘exit’.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
